QUANTITATIVE METHODS

Presentation on Case
Of
REAL FOODS

Prepared By (Group-10):-
Akhil Shah
Pranay Roy
Samik Mallick
Shiv Kumar Mall
Shovan Bhunia
Snehasis Saha
Sudhansu Shekar Panda
Vinay Khemani
QUANTITATIVE METHODS
Weekly Sales
Week Bangalore Chennai Hyderabad

  (Convenience) (Quality) (Price)

       
1 75 45 65
2 60 54 45
3 75 65 56
4 45 56 60
5 55 65 64
6 72 70 54
7 65 62 80
8 80 70 56
9 75 71 67
10 89 60 50
11 95 67 67
12 87 64 70
13 64 56 72
14 71 65 65
15 84 57 65
16 75 54 63
17 54 67 56
18 65 70 64
19 65 59 68
20 55 63 72
 QUANTITATIVE METHODS

What to Find

 Was difference in sales was due to different

communication strategies for three different
states?
 QUANTITATIVE METHODS

On the Basis of ANNOVA TEST

hypothesis

H₀ : Difference in sales is not due to different communication

strategies used in different cities.

H₁ : Difference in sales is due to different communication strategies

used in different cities.
 QUANTITATIVE METHODS
Week Bangalore     Chennai       Hyderabad    

  (Convenience)   x  x  (x  x)² (Quality)  

x x   ( x  x)² (Price)  
x x  ( x  x)²
                   
1 75 4.7 22.09 45 -17 289 65 2.05 4.2025
2 60 -10.3 106.09 54 -8 64 45 -17.95 322.2025
3 75 4.7 22.09 65 3 9 56 -6.95 48.3025
4 45 -25.3 640.09 56 -6 36 60 -2.95 8.7025
5 55 -15.3 234.09 65 3 9 64 1.05 1.1025
6 72 1.7 2.89 70 8 64 54 -8.95 80.1025
7 65 -5.3 28.09 62 0 0 80 17.05 290.7025
8 80 9.7 94.09 70 8 64 56 -6.95 48.3025
9 75 4.7 22.09 71 9 81 67 4.05 16.4025
10 89 18.7 349.69 60 -2 4 50 -12.95 167.7025
11 95 24.7 610.09 67 5 25 67 4.05 16.4025
12 87 16.7 278.89 64 2 4 70 7.05 49.7025
13 64 -6.3 39.69 56 -6 36 72 9.05 81.9025
14 71 0.7 0.49 65 3 9 65 2.05 4.2025
15 84 13.7 187.69 57 -5 25 65 2.05 4.2025
16 75 4.7 22.09 54 -8 64 63 0.05 0.0025
17 54 -16.3 265.69 67 5 25 56 -6.95 48.3025
18 65 -5.3 28.09 70 8 64 64 1.05 1.1025
19 65 -5.3 28.09 59 -3 9 68 5.05 25.5025
20 55 -15.3 234.09 63 1 1 72 9.05 81.9025
                   
Sum 1406   3216.2 1240   882 1259   1300.95
Mean 70.3     62     62.95    
 QUANTITATIVE METHODS

Computation of Variance & Grand Mean

 
CITY
x (x  x)² (n – 1) S²

Bangalore 70.30 3216.20 19 169.27

Chennai 62.00 882.00 19 46.42

Hyderabad 62.95 1300.95 19 68.47

Since the sample sizes are all equal

GRAND MEAN __ (70.3 + 62 + 62.95) / 3 65.08
x
 QUANTITATIVE METHODS

 nx( x
)2

ˆ
j j
Between column 
j 1 =
2
M S
variance T R
k  1 b

MSTR = 20(70.3 – 65.08)² + 20(62 – 65.08)² + 20(62.95 - 65.08)²

3–1
= 544.97 + 189.73 + 90.74
2
= 825.44
2
= 412.72
 QUANTITATIVE METHODS

Within Column (n1)

s j
2
j

ˆ
j1 2
M S E
Variance  =
T
n k w

MSE = 19(169.27) + 19(46.42) + 19(68.47)

60 – 3
= 3216.2 + 882 + 1300.95
57
= 5399.15
57
= 94.72
 QUANTITATIVE METHODS
Compute F value

Between-subjects variability
F=
Within-subjects variability

F= 412.72
94.72

= 4.357
 QUANTITATIVE METHODS

ANNOVA Table

Source of Sum of Degree of Mean

Variation Squares Freedom Square F
Treatment 825.44 2 412.72 4.357
Error 5399.15 57 94.72
Total 6224.56 59
 QUANTITATIVE METHODS

Critical value & putting that in curve

Degree of Freedom = (Numerator - 1) & (Denominator-1)

= (k-1) & ( - k) n T
= (3 – 1) & (60 – 3)
= 2 & 57

Level of Significance
α = 0.01, 0.05
QUANTITATIVE METHODS

Do Not Reject H0 Reject H0

F
Critical Value
BCV/WCV
 QUANTITATIVE METHODS

Level of Degree of Critical Value CHI-Square Conclusion

Significance Freedom value
0.01 2 & 60 4.98 4.357 Not-reject H₀
0.05 2 & 60 3.15 4.357 reject H₀

CONCLUSION
On taking 0.05 level of significance in consideration it
is concluded that difference in sales is significantly not
due to different communication strategies used in
different cities.
QUANTITATIVE METHODS